linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130715091428.GA26199@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:14:28 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: slab shrinkers: BUG at mm/list_lru.c:92

On Thu 04-07-13 18:36:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 03-07-13 21:24:03, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:44:27PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Tue 02-07-13 22:19:47, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Ok, so it's been leaked from a dispose list somehow. Thanks for the
> > > > info, Michal, it's time to go look at the code....
> > > 
> > > OK, just in case we will need it, I am keeping the machine in this state
> > > for now. So we still can play with crash and check all the juicy
> > > internals.
> > 
> > My current suspect is the LRU_RETRY code. I don't think what it is
> > doing is at all valid - list_for_each_safe() is not safe if you drop
> > the lock that protects the list. i.e. there is nothing that protects
> > the stored next pointer from being removed from the list by someone
> > else. Hence what I think is occurring is this:
> > 
> > 
> > thread 1			thread 2
> > lock(lru)
> > list_for_each_safe(lru)		lock(lru)
> >   isolate			......
> >     lock(i_lock)
> >     has buffers
> >       __iget
> >       unlock(i_lock)
> >       unlock(lru)
> >       .....			(gets lru lock)
> >       				list_for_each_safe(lru)
> > 				  walks all the inodes
> > 				  finds inode being isolated by other thread
> > 				  isolate
> > 				    i_count > 0
> > 				      list_del_init(i_lru)
> > 				      return LRU_REMOVED;
> > 				   moves to next inode, inode that
> > 				   other thread has stored as next
> > 				   isolate
> > 				     i_state |= I_FREEING
> > 				     list_move(dispose_list)
> > 				     return LRU_REMOVED
> > 				 ....
> > 				 unlock(lru)
> >       lock(lru)
> >       return LRU_RETRY;
> >   if (!first_pass)
> >     ....
> >   --nr_to_scan
> >   (loop again using next, which has already been removed from the
> >   LRU by the other thread!)
> >   isolate
> >     lock(i_lock)
> >     if (i_state & ~I_REFERENCED)
> >       list_del_init(i_lru)	<<<<< inode is on dispose list!
> > 				<<<<< inode is now isolated, with I_FREEING set
> >       return LRU_REMOVED;
> > 
> > That fits the corpse left on your machine, Michal. One thread has
> > moved the inode to a dispose list, the other thread thinks it is
> > still on the LRU and should be removed, and removes it.
> > 
> > This also explains the lru item count going negative - the same item
> > is being removed from the lru twice. So it seems like all the
> > problems you've been seeing are caused by this one problem....
> > 
> > Patch below that should fix this.
> 
> Good news! The test was running since morning and it didn't hang nor
> crashed. So this really looks like the right fix. It will run also
> during weekend to be 100% sure. But I guess it is safe to say
> 
> Tested-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>

And I can finally confirm this after over weekend testing on ext3.

Thanks a lot for your help Dave!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/